M T N L Vs. KAY AAR APARTMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the M. T. N. L. ') have filed an Appeal No. A-382/99 challenging the order of the District Forum-I dated 17.2.1999, in Complaint Case No.972/97 - entitled Kay Aar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. V/s. M. T. N. L. Thereafter on 30.3.1999, Kay Aar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Company') have also filed a cross-appeal bearing No. A-383/99 against the same order. Since both the appeals arise out of a common order, we propose to dispose of the same by this common order.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of both these appeals are, that the Company is maintaining essential like water, electricity, elevator, security etc. in a building known as 'kaushalya' Building bearing Municipal No.4380, situated at 4-B, Gali Murari Lal, Ansari Road, New Delhi. The Company, for the abovesaid purpose is having its office in the same building in flat No.4 on the ground floor. In the office of the Company one telephone No.3288514 is installed. The Company received Bill dated 1.4.1997 for Rs.21,326/- for the billing cycle 16.1.1997 to 15.3.1997 and another Bill dated 1.6.1997 for Rs.15,427/- for the billing cycle 16.3.1997 to 15.5.1997. It is the case of the Company that both these bills were excessive and included charges for several overseas and out station calls which were never made from the telephone of the Company because as per the bills, the alleged calls were allegedly made from the office of the Company after 9.00 p. m. whereas the office of the Company where the Telephone in question is installed is closed and locked every day at 6.30 p. m. and the key remains with the Director of the Company. In other words, as per the case of the Company no one has access to the office of the Company where the telephone is installed after 6.30 p. m. It is also stated that the said telephone may have been tapped/hooked by some STD Booth Operator in collusion with the staff of the MTNL. It is alleged that despite numerous complaints in this regard the matter was not investigated properly by the MTNL and on the contrary the telephone of the Company was disconnected without any notice on 3.9.1997. Thereafter, the Company filed a complaint with the District Forum praying for several reliefs as enumerated below : (i) that direction be issued to the respondent to remove the 'deficiency in service' by reconnecting the telephone No.3288514 of the Company ; (ii) that damages of Rs.1,000/- per day be awarded against the MTNL on account of gross deficiency in service till such time the telephone is restored by the MTNL; (iii) that the respondent MTNL be directed to rectify the bill copy annexed with the complaint and marked as Annexure-D; and (iv) that cost be also awarded to the complainant.

(3.) The MTNL took several adjournments for filing their reply/written version before the District Forum and were finally proceeded ex parte. But later on, the MTNL moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order. The same was allowed subject to cost of Rs.250/- and consequently the MTNL filed their reply/written version as well as affidavit by way of evidence but did not contest the proceedings thereafter. In the reply/written version the MTNL stated that the impugned bills were correct and issued on the basis of calls registered in the computer. It was also denied by the MTNL that there was any collusion of its staff with some STD Booth Operator or that proper investigation was not made by it on the complaints of the Company. The MTNL also stated in their written version/reply that since the telephone in question was provided with Dynamic STD Locking facility, there was no possibility of its misuse by any external agency and also cited several decisions of the High Court in support of its abovesaid contention.